90 likes | 100 Views
This article summarizes the insights from the GCPC 2015 meeting in New Delhi on climate impacts, adaptation, and the research-policy interface. It discusses lessons learned, the connection between mitigation and adaptation, loss and damage from the science and legal sides, and the relationship between law and science.
E N D
Climate Impacts and the Research-Policy Interface Summary of Insights from the GCPC 2015 meeting in New Delhi Sonja Klinsky
Recognizing the Diversity of Adaptation Source: John Colvin, GCPC 2015, New Delhi
Theme 1: Learning Across Fragmentation • Due to diversity of local adaptation efforts and needs, very specific and context specific lessons, • Despite multiple attempts to develop ‘lessons’, ‘best practice’ ongoing challenges • How measure success (and how determine what has NOT been successful) when goals vary • Facilitating short-term adaptation • Longer term resilience to shocks • Long term transformative adaptation • How appropriately share lessons across contexts?
2. Connecting Mitigation and Adaptation Scholars • Adaptation and resilience offer many theoretical and practical insights about how change happens (or can be supported) • Tend to be more context specific, greater attention to politics, power and social aspects than much mitigation research • Explicit attention to theories of change • In scaling up: recognition of non-linear ‘scale up’, multiple avenues for learning and connecting • Many different elements and drivers of change recognized for individuals, communities, institutions, cultures etc.
Loss and Damage from the Science Side • New developments in Probability Event Attribution • Very larger ensembles of computing power, able to statistically determine probabilities • Possible to determine the probability that a particular extreme event was changed because of climate change • To date, these studies have been ad hoc and not designed to inform global policy • By default much more study in developed countries in areas near research centers (EU, Australia, US) • Led to calls for thinking seriously about how to generate interest and support for a more coherent effort to do such studies in a globally targeted way
Loss and Damage from the Legal Side • Ongoing discussions in UNFCCC • Challenge of ‘compensation’ and liability in the negotiations • Would a ‘solidarity and support’ frame work better? • Options for legal action outside UNFCCC • Country to country ‘cessation and reparation’ claims, but multiple barriers (finding standing, clarity of causation, establishing damages etc) • Use of human rights law if human rights have been damaged (similar barriers to above) • Use domestic law and legislate claims in own jurisdiction • Recognition of learning, and narrative creation through use of legal instruments, even when not ‘successful’
Relationships between Law and Science? • Does improved probabilistic event attribution change the legal scene? • Past analogies with tobacco and other uses of probabilistic evidence in legal causation decisions? • What kinds of options are there for private sector fiduciary responsibility through stronger probabilistic science?
Thank You • Disclaimer: This is a summary of discussions amongst multiple people. I have tried to portray it accurately but may have failed. I neither claim credit the useful parts, nor blame any misrepresentations on others. • Key Experts included: Fredericke Otto; LavanyaRajamani; John Colvin; IndraniPhukan • Sonja Klinsky (sonja.klinsky@asu.edu), Arizona State University